IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 544 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

KRANTHI KUMAR PRATHIPATI SON OF SRI ANJANEYULU PRATHIPATI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.67, 3RD CROSS, RK GARDENS, BEHIND GOWRI APARTMENTS, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE 560 054 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

V.KRISHNAPPA SON OF SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANTIGANAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 561205.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed (BY SRI. MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE)

by SHWETHA RAGHAVEN DRA THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF Location: HIGH THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO A)

COURT OF KARNATAKA APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT UNDER AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED MARCH 13, 2015, AT ANNEXURE A, AS EXTENDED UNDER THE RECEIPT CUM ENDORSEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 07, 2015, AT ANNEXURE B, AND REFER THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION THROUGH SUCH ARBITRATOR AND ARBITRATION CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARBITRATION CLAUSE 10.1.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief’s;

a) Appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent under agreement of sale deed march 13, 2015, at annexure a, as extended under the receipt cum endorsement dated November 07, 2015, at Annexure B, and refer the parties to arbitration through such arbitrator and arbitration conciliation act, 1996 arbitration clause 10.1.

b) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner and respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.03.2015, agreeing to sell the property subject matter of the said agreement. Contending that, the respondent has not executed a sale deed and there is a dispute which has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, petitioner had issued a notice on 16.10.2024, nominating three arbitrators and calling upon the respondent to agree to any one of them in order to proceed with the arbitration. The notice having been served on the respondent, the respondent having not replied to the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The submission of Sri.S.V.Bhat., learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the agreement dated 13.03.2015 there is a dispute as regards the execution of sale deed by the respondent, the petitioner intending to initiate proceeding for Specific Performance by way of arbitration, a notice has been issued on 16.10.2024, which has not been acceded to by the respondents.

4. Though, learned counsel for the respondent has taken up various contentions as regards the petition being barred by limitation and the document being a fraudulent document, etc., what would be required to be seen by this Court is as to whether there is a claim for specific performance which is maintainable by the petitioner, inasmuch as Clause 9.1 has been stuck off, which before being struck of read as under;

9.1 In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement by either party, the aggrieved party shall be entitled for specific performance of this Agreement by institution of legal proceedings and/or at their option may recovery of the money paid as on that day along with 12% p.a.

5. The above would indicate that, though there was an initial Clause present in the agreement that either party would be entitled to seek for specific performance, the said Clause having been struck off, it is clear that neither of the parties can claim for specific performance.

6. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Clause has been stuck off unilaterally by the respondent, the fact remains that the respondent has not agreed to a Clause i